Feetum and Other v Levy and Others: ChD 5 Jan 2005

The applicants sought a declaration that the appointment of the defendants as administrative receivers of the company, a limited liability company, was precluded by the 1986 Act.
Held: The administrator had been appointed under a debenture, but the section precluded such appointments by proprietors of a floating charge unless one of the exceptions specified arose, particularly where the project company was a financed project and included step-over rights. There was no reason to limit the scope of the term ‘project’ within the Act to construction projects. The scheme was a project within the definition, but it was not ‘financed’ since at the time of the incurring of the debt, it was not expected that the borrowings would exceed andpound;50 million. Tthough the receivers were appointed by the Act, they operated as agents of the borrowers. It was not a financed project, and the exceptions allowing the appointment did not apply.


Lewison J


Times 24-Feb-2005


Insolvency Act 1986 72A


England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromFeetum v Levy CA 2006
Jonathan Parker LJ discussed the granting of declarations: ‘things have indeed moved on since the Meadows case was decided; and the courts should not nowadays apply such a restrictive meaning to the passage in Lord Diplock’s speech in Gouriet’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Company

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.223013